Maybe I'm stupid, but I quite like to get more points for heads-up games, even if it's only 10 times more than before. Luckily, there are happy hours to add to this miniscule improvement.

Sure, it's going to cost affiliates (I know my own numbers have been hit also) however it's a fairer system then dealt and unless they invent a new method of calculating MGR it's the fairest available out of current available methods.

no worries

*dramatic improvement

Seriously, heads up players win considerably with this update (although to be fair they were also getting the short end of the stick before).

Rakeback is weekly. I dont want to have to accumulate a MILLION points for me to get the same value as my rakeback already was. I have been playing for over 3 years there, quite regularly, and only used like 50k ftp pts total and STILL only have 815k. Even with 2x ftps, I am going to have to wait a year and a half to get the value.
If they had better rewards otherwise to make up for it, OK. But they dont.

If they made it contributed and the winner who pays all the rake got the RB for the hand, OK, thats fair too. But what they have done is not. Skelm, as the owner of a god damned affiliate yourself, you KNOW that the vast majority of fish have no rakeback.

Again, I dont even know if I will make more. I play 22% vpip at 6m PLO, which seems to be RIIIIIIIIIIGHT at the cutoff point.

Plus im just plain pissed off at the scumminess of this whole deal.

raketherake hellyeah!!!

Actually I quite strongly believe people are vastly underestimating how many fish actually have rakeback. A large portion of the games now (at least at 200nl and above) consist of regfish (regular players who have exploitable leaks). You still get a number of high vp$ip players however it's arguable that a portion of these also have rakeback (I know I personally have signed a few family members for players with rakeback who were completely new players).

I'm unsure how big this portion would be at the micros but I can confidently say that a lot of people in this thread are over-exaggerating the number of fish that wouldn't have rakeback for SSNL and above. It's not 2003 anymore - this information is easily available and a lot of players would have been referred by existing players (who no doubt would have emphasized getting rakeback).

it is fair method but it is not fair when rakeback is 27%, check all other rooms with weighet contributed method and u will see that FTP is with lowest %

I dont mean regfish who are .25ptbb winners. I mean fish. Real, honest to god, AK234 is a straight, call with the nut low, A4 on AQKJssss3x, etc etc. FISH. Even just the fish who are 2ptbb losers instead of 7ptbb losers. The guys who this would be GOOD for, which would in turn be good for the regs, be they real winners or regfish with micro WRs.

Even if many people underestimate the number without rakeback, which I assume is like 15%, and the actual # is 35%, it doesnt change much.

This doesn't hold as they actually rake the lowest also. Trust me, you would much rather the lower rake.

If people really wanted poker to be "true" again, they would one-table and not use crutches like HUD's. I wish that were the case, but as long as it is not quit inferring it.

So you want to change to dealt because FullTilt is making more, not because the system is fairer? I'm really not sure what anti-weighted-contributed people here are trying to argue anymore and it just seems to me like people are band-wagoning without considering the full picture or fully understanding the subject matter.

If instead you're arguing that everybody should have rakeback - I agree, it would be great. However FullTilt relies on banner ads (which affiliates provide) and the lack of advertising would ultimately hurt the games a lot more then the added gain of fish receiving rakeback.

And yes I'm ultimately biased but understand that I'm arguing here as a player (after all, I'm arguing for weighted-contributed which is a much less profitable system for me then dealt).

I respect your need to make a living, but in the purest sense I don't think everyone should have rakeback. I think no one should have rackback and the rake should be lower.

Completely agree but I don't think poker would be anywhere near as big as it is now if this had been the choice from the get go nor do I think FullTilt would continue bringing in as many new players if this was put in place now.

So the **** what? the winning players are bringin out money from the game its good this update

Yea I agree getting rakeback every week is much better, but it's still not a good reason for certain players to continue receiving more rakeback then they contribute. Better rewards would have definitely helped.

That seems to be the 'fairest' of all as the winner of the pot is the one who 'actually' paid the rake, but I don't think any site does contributed this way, but maybe that will change in the future. Weighted contributed is still the fairest way to calculate rakeback of all the methods currently used. Just because it's not 100% fair, it is still MUCH fairer then the current dealt method. And, I don't understand your argument of 100% fair or back to dealt, which is not even close to fair.

I am near the cutoff point as well, and will probably lose a little. I don't feel like FTP making the rakeback method much fairer to who is actually contributing is scummy at all. Players will still receive 27% of what they contribute, and really have no right to get more then their share. I guess you could say the VIP program was way overhyped and exaggerated for what it is, but what company doesn't do that with all their new promotions?

Hi Doug,

As a long time Full Tilt regular I also want to register that I am very disappointing with the changes and the especially the way it went down.

I find the rhetoric of fairness insulting. Lowering my rakeback after years using the same system does not strike me as fair. Sure the system is fair in the abstract but another meaning of fairness is meeting the expectations you have long established for people. And treating them with respect.

Wrapping an effective decrease in RB (even figuring the black card bonus--the cash bonuses after the mgr hit are far worse than buying tourney entries so it adds little except double points) in the language of a great new promotion was really disrespectful.

I hope you remedy this situation soon.

People understand the full picture very well. It has been pointed out for a long time that FTP does not have much incentive for people to play beyond the minimum for ironman. FTP (FTPDoug) said they will deal with this with a program to reward higher volume players. Now we get the actual program, and they have provided a moderate boost for tourney and huhu players, and lowered rewards for the rest.

Where is the incentive for me to play more? 9m/6m cash players who go beyond $1500 rake (Black Card) in a month get about 26% dealt rake reward in the new system, less incentive than they used to have. Maybe I personally will get 28%, but it's still less incentive. Even the incentive to go from $750 rake to $1500 in a month is barely over 30% (dealt) now.

There are all kinds of different players here. Myself, I'm retired, and poker is a pure recreation that happens to make me money. I'm grateful for that, but I don't have to play on Full Tilt to have that recreation. Where is my incentive to even give more than $750 rake a month to FTP, when I could instead be playing Civilization, Empire at War, Oblivion, etc.? (For you young folks, pretend I said Wii and pr0n.)

The incentive should be to improve, not grind out higher rakeback. PokerStars has taken that approach and do you honestly think the games are better for it?

You still haven't specified - are you arguing against weighted-contributed, or are you arguing for a better rewards system? If you're arguing for a better rewards system - I completely agree with you, however this can't really be tackled until the dust has settled from the rake change. We also aren't entitled to it - it's simply something we expected from Doug's posts running back to last year.

If you're arguing against weighted-contributed - Why? Why should players be paid in MGR for rake they didn't pay for?

+1. Well said. I think there are two things you could do immediately to help remedy this situation. First would be lowering the cost of the cash bonuses to make them at least equal in value to the tourney tickets in the regular store. Second would be making a higher level (perhaps "Black Diamond") of the VIP program that rewards your serious grinders with a higher FTP multiplier.

could we please stop discussing whats fair and whats not...people signed up under certain conditions...conditions that have been altered. Ofcourse people can complain about that.
Does anybody actually really thinks ftp cares about whats fair and whats not?
Bottomline is ftp keeps the change...please continue.

Skelm there are other affiliate systems that can be financially rewarding besides skimming some RB. For example, FT could give all players RB but offer affiliates a referal fee. So, for example, if I signed up through your banner then you would earn $200, $500, whatever which would be released as and when I played raked hands.

That's already an option now and a very small part of the market. If this was the only option available to affiliates we'd all push other sites a lot harder then FullTilt given that others would be offering a more continuous revenue stream.

Just a word of warning for those comparing the two custom stats available in this thread and saying "Hey, there's not much difference."

Neither of these stats calculates the MGR using the dealt method that has been used to calculate your rakeback until now, so comparing them one to the other is meaningless. If you want to know what your MGR was under the old method you need to look at the built-in HEM stat called "Rake".

This is how HEM support describe the "Rake" stat:

"Before the FT change, HM displayed the MGR as 'rake' for Full Tilt. (based on a "Dealt Rake" calculation). And if you took 27% of the 'rake' (=MGR) you'd know precisely how much rakeback you'd get."

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the custom stats, and the author has already stated that they are not 100% accurate, but if you want to compare them with the old FTP 'dealt' method MGR, compare them with the built-in 'rake' stat, not with each other.


...and prepare for a shock.

I haven't seen all of the ones posted but the pokerstrategy.de Hold'em Manager one kicking around adds uncalled bets into it's formula also (making it extremely inaccurate).

I do believe there's an accurate PokerTracker 3 one floating around but can't be sure - I'm sure somebody else can clarify.